Is growth a necessity in capitalist economies?

[Phaedros]

That video was great.

[Johnny_Doe]

@Clayton

Why does unlimited amounts of stuff make me better off(I`m sure I can settle with just enough)?

First of all, we live in a limited universe so no one is talking about “unlimited amounts” of anything. In fact, this is why economics matters… the ever-present problem of scarcity forces us (and all other living things) to economize, that is, to figure what is the highest use to which we can put our limited resources.

Why “highest”, why not just high enough?

@Clayton

But to understand why more goods are preferable to fewer goods, compare the value of a $100 bill in New York City versus the value of a $100 bill in the middle of the Sahara desert. In NYC, you have an abundance of choices of how to spend that $100, and it is these choices which makes the $100 so valuable. In the Sahara, there are no choices of where to spend the $100 bill… it is of no value whatever. So, the value of money comes from its use in exchange and the more kinds of things there are for which money can be exchnaged, the more valuable money becomes.

Clayton -

Money has no value to me, sufficient water has value and more than sufficient doesnt add any value, sufficient food has value and more than sufficient doesnt add any value , sufficient shelter has value and more than sufficient doesn`t add any value etc

[John_James]

@Phaedros

That video was great.

Be sure to check out the rest of

HowTheWorldWorks Critiques

[z1235]

@Johnny Doe

Money has no value to me, sufficient water has value and more than sufficient doesnt add any value, sufficient food has value and more than sufficient doesnt add any value, sufficient shelter has value and more than sufficient doesn`t add any value etc

Of course, for everyone else too, money has value to the extent that it can be exchanged for something valued/needed. As for needing only what’s sufficient, you’re no different from anyone else, as well. Values/preferences – and with them, the definition of “sufficient” – can only be subjective. If you think that you have sufficient water, food, and shelter then good for you – you can go on living sitting on your a** and not move a finger for the rest of your life. Or you could start writing poetry (need **pencil **and paper?), play chess (need a chess board?), call a friend (need a cell phone?), or improve your access to water (still trecking two miles to the river?), food (still hunting a squirrel all day for dinner?), or shelter (still freezing in winter?) each of which re-define your subjective understanding of “sufficient”.

[ClaytonB]

Why “highest”, why not just high enough?

Because the satisfaction to be had from the highest use is greater than the satisfaction to be had from any other use and humans choose a greater satisfaction of wants over a lesser satisfaction of wants. If you have an apple and an orange and you like oranges better than apples, you may eat the orange first. Or, if you prefer to savor the last thing you eat, you may choose to eat the orange last. Either way, you are so choosing in order to attain the greatest satisfaction of your wants (appetites) that is available to you given the resources you have (an apple and an orange).

Money has no value to me,

I guess you must not have to pay rent or pay for internet access like the rest of us. Lucky you.

Clayton -

[Johnny_Doe]

@Clayton

Why “highest”, why not just high enough?

Because the satisfaction to be had from the highest use is greater than the satisfaction to be had from any other use and humans choose a greater satisfaction of wants over a lesser satisfaction of wants. If you have an apple and an orange and you like oranges better than apples, you may eat the orange first. Or, if you prefer to savor the last thing you eat, you may choose to eat the orange last. Either way, you are so choosing in order to attain the greatest satisfaction of your wants (appetites) that is available to you given the resources you have (an apple and an orange).

Why go and pick two apples and two oranges or more just because there are many, if you can only eat one of each? Why build yourself a 4000 square feet(or more) home, if you only need a 1000?

@Clayton

Money has no value to me,

I guess you must not have to pay rent or pay for internet access like the rest of us. Lucky you.

Clayton -

Money in itself has no value to me, its just a means of exchange, its the water, food, shelter, rent. internet access etc that has value.

So does renting a bigger flat than you need, add value? Does buying more bandwith than you need, add value?

[Johnny_Doe]

@z1235

@Johnny Doe

Money has no value to me, sufficient water has value and more than sufficient doesnt add any value, sufficient food has value and more than sufficient doesnt add any value, sufficient shelter has value and more than sufficient doesn`t add any value etc

Of course, for everyone else too, money has value to the extent that it can be exchanged for something valued/needed. As for needing only what’s sufficient, you’re no different from anyone else, as well. Values/preferences – and with them, the definition of “sufficient” – can only be subjective. If you think that you have sufficient water, food, and shelter then good for you – you can go on living sitting on your a** and not move a finger for the rest of your life. Or you could start writing poetry (need **pencil **and paper?), play chess (need a chess board?), call a friend (need a cell phone?), or improve your access to water (still trecking two miles to the river?), food (still hunting a squirrel all day for dinner?), or shelter (still freezing in winter?) each of which re-define your subjective understanding of “sufficient”.

But why build a bigger home than you need, why buy/gather more food than you need, why buy more pencils than you need, why buy more chessboards than you need, why buy moe cell phones than you need etc just because the resources needed are available?

[ClaytonB]

Why go and pick two apples and two oranges or more just because there are many, if you can only eat one of each?

That would be an example of choosing to expend resources on something other than their highest use… if you can’t eat another orange or apple, then expending effort on picking them when you could be kicked back smoking some pot is wasting your time and energy on something that is not the highest use of your time and energy.

Why build yourself a 4000 square feet(or more) home, if you only need a 1000?

Do you mean “need” as judge by myself or as judged by another? If you mean by myself, then my answer is the same as above… I’m wasting resources on the extra 3000 sq. ft. that could have gone to a business investment or to self-insurance or to a yacht or to buying a more comfortable or fuel-efficient vehicle or to my kids’ education, etc. If you mean as judged by someone else (as I suspect), then I would simply say that only I can judge what is the highest use of my resources in the satisfaction of my wants.

Clayton -

[EmperorNero]

All resources have alternative uses, every ton of concrete that is used inefficiently anywhere in the economy can not be used for hospitals. Already, half of all health care costs are caused by people in the last year of their life, and the more we keep people alive the more health care they are going to need. In other words, there is practically unlimited demand for health care. Therefore, there can never be “enough” productivity or economic growth.

[z1235]

@Johnny Doe

But why build a bigger home than you need, why buy/gather more food than you need, why buy more pencils than you need, why buy more chessboards than you need, why buy moe cell phones than you need etc just because the resources needed are available?

Everything I do/have, I need. That’s why I do/have it. If I didn’t need it, then I wouldn’t do/have it and I would be doing/having something else instead. I do/have the things that I do/have because I prefer them to a state where I don’t do/have them, or to a state where I do/have something else. And you should do the same. As long as you can acquire them through voluntary exchanges, please have as many pencils, chessboards, and cell-phones as you need, and not a single one of each more.

[Johnny_Doe]

@z1235

@Johnny Doe

But why build a bigger home than you need, why buy/gather more food than you need, why buy more pencils than you need, why buy more chessboards than you need, why buy moe cell phones than you need etc just because the resources needed are available?

Everything I do/have, I need. That’s why I do/have it. If I didn’t need it, then I wouldn’t do/have it and I would be doing/having something else instead. I do/have the things that I do/have because I prefer them to a state where I don’t do/have them, or to a state where I do/have something else. And you should do the same. As long as you can acquire them through voluntary exchanges, please have as many pencils, chessboards, and cell-phones as you need, and not a single one of each more.

So regulations/taxes/inflation/education/marketing etc doesnt influence what people buy/dont buy in any way, it just comes down to what people actually want/need?

[z1235]

@Johnny Doe

So regulations/taxes/inflation/education/marketing etc doesnt influence what people buy/dont buy in any way, it just comes down to what people actually want/need?

Are you asking me if coercion affects action/choice? Or whether it should? Why would I voluntarily have (buy) something I didn’t think I needed?

[Johnny_Doe]

@z1235

@Johnny Doe

So regulations/taxes/inflation/education/marketing etc doesnt influence what people buy/dont buy in any way, it just comes down to what people actually want/need?

Are you asking me if coercion affects action/choice? Or whether it should? Why would I voluntarily have (buy) something I didn’t think I needed?

Yes.

[z1235]

Yes, what? Are you suggesting that coercion should affect voluntary action? If yes, then please answer whose coercion should affect whose voluntary action, and based on what?